ed states senate in 2016." that does it for today's washington journal. thank you for watching. we will be back in tomorrow 7:00 a.m. eastern time. now, live coverage of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 14, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip

limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. as we're dealing with the defense authorization legislation, we should step back and look at the big picture. are we taking tough stands dealing with us clating personnel costs procurement issues excess facilities? are we honoring our responsibility of the military to clean up after itself? one of the best examples is a failure to deal with the right sizing of our military facilities. it's no secret that our nuclear triad, which is our land-based missiles, our nuclear submarines and our bombers, are wildly in excess of anything we

need for deterrence. the pentagon's 2013 report on nuclear employment strategy declared that we can ensure the security of the united states and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrence while safely pursuing up to a 1/3 reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level established in the new start treaty. vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general james cartwright suggested we can go even lower without jeopardizing security. yet, we're on a trajectory to spend over a trillion dollars in the decades to come on weapons that are largely irrelevant to the challenges of today, isis, 9/11 types of attacks, military activities in iraq and afghanistan, russian aggression in the ukraine. we should be addressing what is

an appropriate level for the nuclear deterrence, but until we face up to what -- we ought to at least know what we're getting into. one simple step would have been to tell congress what the longer term costs are going to be. in the last legislation, i had an amendment that was successfully approved to require the c.b.o. to publish every two years a 10-year cost estimate of our nuclear modernization. it's already proven extremely valuable to provide us a set of numbers that we can compare to the pentagon's estimates, but unfortunately more and more of these expenses are being pushed outside the 10-year window. i had an amendment that would have at least required our being able to have a 25-year cost of modernization, an estimate the pentagon said they can do and one that we already have for the nuclear national

security administration. one other area that was equally puzzling was a failure of an amendment to -- on a bipartisan fully offset amendment to upgrade our air national guard f-15's. the radar they are using dates to the 1970's. in fact, it went out of production 30 years ago. we had a simple bipartisan, fully offset amendment to allow the air guard to at least get 10 planes modernized on an ongoing basis. it's frustrating. we're failing to tackle the big issues. we're not even given an opportunity to guarantee congress knows what the longer term costs are and we're shortchanging small investments that would make a big difference for our air national guard. i hope we're going to have an

opportunity as the legislation moves forward for congress to do a better job balancing our priorities meeting the needs of our men and women in uniform and protecting our long-term budget. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine, for five minutes. mr. bridenstine: mr. speaker, i'd like to take some time this morning to celebrate the life of a remarkable american, the late smith wildman brookhart iii. mr. brookhart was born on january 22, 1935, and passed away last month. he's survived by his wife of 56 years gale anderson brookhart, three sons and their wives and 10 grandchildren. one of smith's sons tom, and his wife, deborah, are my

constituents and my good friends in tulsa oklahoma. let me talk for a moment about smith brookhart's life. after graduating from east high school in duluth, minnesota, smith attended iowa state college in ames, iowa receiving his degree in 1957. he served our country in uniform in the united states navy. his service included two ant arctic expeditions. as a navy pilot myself, i can tell you antarctic expeditions are not friendly, let me say that. he moved his family to branson, missouri, where he became the c.e.o. of ozark mountain bank and served in that capacity over three decades. he was very involved in the development of branson missouri. my family and i have taken occasion to visit branson. it is a very family-friendly town where christians are very welcomed and i know that his christian faith was very important to him.

at age 69, smith received a heart transplant and was given a new lease on life. there's a beautiful line i read in smith's obituary, which i'd like to read. quote smith would not want to be remembered for the accolades of his efforts but for a life rich with friendships. mr. speaker, thank you for giving me time to recognize smith brookhart a remarkable american, father, grandfather community leader patriot and servant of christ. i'd like to close with romans chapter 8 verse 38. for i am convinced that neither life nor death nor angels nor demons neither the present nor the future nor any powers, neither height, no depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate ourselves from the love of god that is in christ jesus lord. may god bless mr. brookhart.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: thank you mr. speaker. later today the house will consider amendments to the national defense authorization act. that's the bill that tells the military what to do with all the money we in here give them. in the committee of jurisdiction over the military, the democrats and republicans whose job it is to examine these issues they voted to include two studies on how immigrants are or are not included in military recruitment. republicans are in the majority so on the republican-led, republican majority committee these two amendments won their votes and were added to the bill. no matter how many times republican leaders have apieced the hardliner on the fringes of

their right flank -- they ruled last night that amendments can be stripped from the bill today. these two reasonable amendments. it's another glaring example of why the republicans from their presidential nominee all the way down to their local government candidates are in very, very deep trouble when it comes to immigration issues. one amendment simply asks the secretary of defense to study the impact of letting immigrants who grew up for years in the united states, who've passed a criminal background check and who have a legal work permit to be in the united states, it asks the secretary of defense to study whether including them in military recruitment would help diversify their military. a study. the second didn't even call for any action, any study at all. it simply said it's a sense of congress that the secretary review whether recipients of deferred action for childhood arrival be allowed to serve in the military. it's kind of telling the top, this is what we think you might

want to do. that is the program where 700,000 young immigrants came forward, got right with the law, got a work permit after they passed a criminal background check. but you know what the secretary of defense reviewing something is when it comes to the hardliners? do you know what studying something related to immigrants who have deferred action is to the nativists? do you know what the contingent of hardcore anti-immigrant guise in the republican congress started shouting? you guessed it the a word. amnesty. i have the language right here. it is the sense of the house of representatives that the secretary of defense should review section 504 title 10 and they yelled amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. members of congress from alabama to iowa to texas began throwing around the amnesty attack. we shouldn't reward illegal aliens who want to risk their lives to defend their adopted

country when we have red-blooded americans who want to fight and die. brightbart in one article a couple days ago used the word amnesty 20 times. in less than 1,400 words while ticking off the members of the house of representatives who might lose elections to more anti-immigrant candidates if the two studies were allowed to be included in the defense bill. this all reminds me of the story of the little mouse. i used to read it to my grandson. the same story you probably read to your kids and grandkids. it goes like this. if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask you for a glass of milk. and if you give him a glass of milk, he's going to ask for a straw. anything you give the little mouse is going to lead to a newer and bigger request.

that's what it must feel like to the speaker of the house boehner with his nativist wing of his party. if you give them 30,000 more border patrol guards, mr. speaker, they're going to ask you for more deportations, and if you give them a record number of deportations they're going to ask the speaker for a vote to more quickly deport vulnerable children. and if you give them the vote for quicker deportation of children, they will demand a vote to deport all dreamers who have permission to work in the united states legally, 700,000 of them. and if you give them a vote on deporting dreamers, they will ask for a hearing on amending the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship. that's what the mouse will do. he will change the constitution of the united states. and then at some point they will demand that every single reference to anything related to immigrants without papers, even a research project be declared amnesty and stripped

from legislation. if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want some milk, mr. speaker. and if you give the restriction on a vote or a hearing on every crazy idea they come up with you will be relegated as a party as maybe a provential party with maybe power in the house of representatives and maybe from time to time being able to run the senate but you'll never win the white house and you'll never run the supreme court. at some point i respectfully suggest you cut off the mouse's supply of cookies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, for five minutes. mr. pomeroy: -- mr. pompeo: i thank you mr. speaker. today this body will take up the iran nuclear agreement review act. it has a noble intention that is to reduce the risk that iranians will develop a nuclear arsenal. unfortunately i think passage of this bill will do just the

opposite. you know, mr. speaker, ben rhodes, the president's deputy national security advisor, said the iranian nuclear deal is president obama's second term obamacare. now, he meant that as a good thing. but we all know what a disaster that law has been for this country. and in reality, the iranian nuclear deal, as it is being negotiated by this president, is far worse for the american people and for future generations than that health care law could ever be. now, this much-heralded framework agreement between the p-5 plus one and iran that president has talked about has never been written down. everyone in this chamber today knows exactly what the ultimate deal will entail, though. the united states and the international community will release iran from its crushing sanctions in exchange for nearly nothing. let's be blunt. iran will continue on the path of getting a nuclear weapon if this agreement is ultimately

signed. but instead of asserting congressional authority and constraining the president, the house today is considering a bill that will do just the opposite. it will give president obama a blank check to sign a really bad deal with the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. . the mullahs will be allowed to enrich uranium as theytown to build their missile program. it is unconscionable for congress to grant such sweeping power to president obama, allowing him to lift sanctions on iran, no matter the cost on national security, the security of israel, and the entire world. but even worse, the house is willing to do this today without having even one hearing, one amendment, a grand total of 40 minutes of debate about how we might actually reduce the risk to the world by constraining the president and the agreement we intends to sign. the house is giving this to the president without even trying. i can't be part of that.

we can't even use timing. the president has we have until at least june 30 before any deal can be struck. on this immensely important issue that my colleagues tell me is one of the most important facing our nation, i agree with that, we will give too short a shrift and move too quickly without doing all we can. for 35 years since our embassy in tehran was taken over for 444 days by the iranians, they have been killing americans. of this killed my friends with i.e.d.'s in iraq. by the hundreds. today shiia militias run rampant through that contry. they talk of baghdad as an extension of the caliphate. even today as i walked here, i watched on the news as iranians were firing on cargo ships off the coast of yemen. they tried to kill an ambassador to the united states in this very town, yet we are about to strike an agreement that will grant them the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and this body is not doing all it can. i urge my fellow members to

oppose this bill and work towards a real solution that has the opportunity to keep iran from getting that nuclear arsenal. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, for five minutes. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. the transpacific partnership trade agreement is the biggest trade deal our country has seen since nafta. with 12 participating countries, it encompasses 40% of the world's gross domestic product. so we have to get it right. working men and women in our communities are counting on us to got it right. not just fast. and that's why i oppose granting fast track authority. you could see the impact of fast track trade agreements in communities across the country. in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs factory jobs middle class jobs, and lower wages for hardworking americans. in fact, the economic policy

institute estimates that since nafta the u.s. has lost more than 700,000 jobs as production has moved to mexico. and the communities i represent in south central wisconsin bear the scars of past trade agreements which have not lived up to the -- to what the supporters say for fast track. take yeas and naysville wisconsin, parker has been in janesville wisconsin and employed at one time over 1000 workers. thanks to bad trade deals, in 2009, the remaining 150 jobs were shipped to mexico. we are not just talking the last few years. we are talking the last few months. in darlington, wisconsin, miracle korff industry plant in darlington accounted 2,00 people announced their closing. 36 family supporting jobs are leaving that community. if that were proportional in madison, with us which is, that would be like losing 3,600 jobs in the community that size.

and every time an american job is shipped out of the country, it pushes wages down for workers here. now, fast track authority means that the american people through their elected representatives will lose their voice in congress by limiting the ability of congress to debate and to amend the trade agreement. due to limited debate because of the fast track process, each member would have a little over two minutes to debate that trade deal. members would have no opportunity to offer amendments on agreement that has 29 chapters that covers everything from food safety to environmental standards labor rights, intellectual property, and more. and it would give congress' constitutional authority to the president for six years. that means this president, the next president, and potentially the next president. and all congress would be left with is a yes or no vote. before congress grants fast track authority, we need to get the transpacific partnership right. what does it mean to get it right? one, it means having strong

enforcement language to protect american workers and our environment. which we don't currently have in the current deal. now, on several occasions i reviewed the labor environmental chapters of the law. and while in some instances the language is marginally better, it still lacks enforcement. with the colombian free trade agreement, we can see exactly what happened. while language has been implemented in the law to protect labor rights, there's been absolutely no implementation of that language. in fact, in the four years since the colombian free trade agreement has passed, 105 union organizers have been killed, murdered in that conterrorism the environmental chapter i would argue is arguably worse and still lacks the same enforcement capacity to protect our country. getting t.p.p. right means scrapping the investment state dispute settlement provision that is put corporate interests ahead of american sovereignty. the i.s.d.s. provisions unique. they create a tribunal run by

the same corporate trade lawyers who on monday represent the multinational corporations, tuesday the fair arbitraters of law, and wednesday back on the corporate payroll. but these provisions are only for multinational corporations and not for american small businesses, for labor, or environmental violations. getting the transpacific partnership right means having other important provisions included like currency manipulation, protections against human trafficking, and protections for human rights for lgbt individuals and for single mothers in countries that have implemented shari'a law. getting the transpacific partnership right means having an open and transparent negotiation because there's still too much the american people don't know about this secretive agreement. after all, only about 600 people have been involved in drafting this agreement largely corporate c.e.o.'s but not you and not me. the bottom line is that this will cost jobs and wages another bad trade deal will cost more american jobs and lower our

wages. we have seen how free trade agreements like nafta, cafta and the korean free trade agreement, passed using the same fast track process have turned out to be a bad deal for american workers. we need to get this right, not just fast. congress must say no to the fast track process. i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york mr. reid, for five minutes. -- reed for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker i rise this morning to highlight and address hopefully an issue that needs to be held in check here in washington d.c. d.c. mr. speaker, our office has been contacted numerous times from individuals across the nation about a tax on private property rights by big government. big government continues to increasingly address and impact private property rights day in and day out. we have heard stories of family farmers, people like neal in my district in western new york who has been farming his land on the

pennsylvania border for years and years and years. just yesterday our governor in the great state of new york banned the development of natural gas by banning hydraulic fracturing across the state of new york. how does that impact mr. vitale? mr. vitale was going to use the resources of the property rights that represented in the natural gas mineral rights to the farm that he he he has taken care of for so many years in order to take care of the bills for him, his family and his family farm. but now that right has been lost. because government action has taken that right away from mr. vitale. there's bob in pennsylvania who was ordered by the u.s. fish and game u.s. army corps of engineers, andp ento stop farming 30 acres of his land as they were determining it to be a wetland. he's been farming that land for years. he had to go through court he he went to the u.s. district court and they said he's ok. he can keep farming the land. that wasn't enough for big

government. they took it up to the court of appeals. and ultimately the court ordered that he he had to stop farming that 30 acres and pay a $10,000 fine and also hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to restore that property to the property that he's been using in his family for generations. then when mr. bryce tried to go to court to seek compensation for that right that was taken away the court said, no. you don't have a right here. mr. speaker, that's against my fundamental belief in this country of private property rights and freedom. in the fifth amendment to the united states constitution, it says, that the government can act and it can take action, but it must provide just compensation when it impacts people's private property. that is why here in washington, d.c., i have taken two concrete actions to address this issue, mr. speaker. recently i started a private property rights caucus with my colleagues in congress. this is a caucus that has been made up of 14 original members

spanning from maine to california to highlight this issue and to say to big government enough is enough. i choose to stand with the individuals and the fundamental property rights that they have paid for, they have earned, that they take care of in maintaining their property paying taxes on their property, and living the american dream. i also introduced the defense of private property rights act. the private property rights act is based on a sumple reading of the fifth amendment of the constitution. and it -- simple reading of the fifth amendment of the constitution. it says just this, if you take action as big government has done, big government will have to take into consideration the impact on private property rights. and if private property rights are taken, we clarify the ability of individuals to go and follow the constitution and at least get compensation from the government for taking those private property rights away from these individuals.

mr. speaker, these are commonsense, simple principles that i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can join with me and say that it is only fair. because if you really care about our fellow americans, when their property rights are taken away because of big government action, we should at least say to them, we will stand with you as individuals and as americans who believe in the fundamental principles of freedom of private property rights and say we'll at least get you some sort of compensation for the injury that you have suffered. so as a result of that i urge my colleagues to join the caucus, support the private property rights act, and join me in highlighting this issue so that we can say enough is enough. it's time to stand with our individuals the constituents that we represent here in washington, d.c., rather than the interest of big government and big government on all levels, federal, state, and local. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes.

mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker i rise today to recognize frank e. lee, who after 35 years of familiar afternoon personality at wxrt, frank welcomed his much deserved retirement last week. as the afternoon voice on xrt, a chicago institution, on to himself. frake's boss -- frank's boss put it best when he said frank's wide ranging love of knowledge and knowledge of music is remarkable verbal skills, his wry and sardonic sense of humor sense of professionalism, and generous nature have distinguished him amongst chicago's all-time-great air personalities. i invite my colleagues to join me in honoring frank e. lee for his career as one of chicago's finest radio personalities, and most recognizable voices. we thank him for his years of service on the air. i was there in the studio as he closed off his career with the stones classic, "moonlight mile." we tried to capture thetsence of

how chicagoans felt when he left. all i can say is i got silence on my radio. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for five minutes. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an institution that for 50 years has been the cultural heart of the city of st. petersburg, florida. this month in may the theater celebrates its 50 of the anniversary. opening in 1965, the venue was originally called the bay front center complex. a combination arena and theater along the city's most beautiful downtown waterfront. it it quickly proved to be a gathering place for community and civic groups, and its many shows drew tourists from around the state. the artists who have performed there could fill an jement 25eu789 hall of fame. from louie armstrong to dionne warwick, kenny rogers, and even the president's own marine corps band. a venue or event that was

secured by the invitation of my predecessor, congressman bill young. the first significant makeover for the venue occurred in 1987, and the bay front theater became the mahaffey theater after a generous gift from the family. big three entertainment took over the management with c.e.o. and chairman edwards privately funding a number of major enhancements. today it is home to the florida orchestra and it is the annual host site for the miss florida pageant. it also supports very importantly the highly successful class acts program. which enables school children to experience the performing arts through in theater performances as well as in school outreach and extension programs. the theater also has been the site of very important moments of american history. the theeter was the site of the 1996 vice presidental debate between al gore and jack kemp, and they hosted the nationally

televised republican presidential primary debate known as the very first youtube debate, for having americans for the first time submit questions via youtube individual heo clips. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the mahaffey theater celebrating a venue that today anchors a growing and vibrant pinellas county community. most porm it celebrates the remarkable human spirit, creativity of so many performers, and the dedication and commitment of the greater st. petersburg community. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. . 8. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. and i come to the floor of the house of representatives again to introduce and talk to this body and to the american people about my constituent amir.

amir is an american. he is a united states marine. he is a brother. he is a son. he's a michiganner. he grew up in my hometown of flint michigan. served in uniform. he's iranian descent though born in the united states. in 2011 for the first time he traveled to iran to visit family he had never met, a grandmother he had never seen. he traveled under his own name, notified the iranian government that he was going to be there and after just a couple of weeks he was apprehended, disappeared. family didn't know where he was more months until it was revealed that he had been tried convicted and sentenced to death for espionage. a charge that he's completely innocent of, and in fact the iranian court of appeals, the appeals process even set aside

that conviction and set aside his death sentence. there was no evidence but they did convict him and sentence him to 10 years, a conviction that is based on the fact that under iranian law he's considered an iranian citizen even though he was born in the united states and never had even been there before, but the fact that he served in the marine corps created a set of facts that caused them to convict him of a crime and sentence him to 10 years. it has been 3 1/2 years. 1,354 days emir -- amir has set in a notorious prison in iran. i have introduced, along with a number of other members, a resolution calling for the immediate release of the americans that iran holds. 28 republican co-sponsors 27 democrats and we're adding them every day.

this is -- not even a bipartisan issue. this is a nonpartisan question. it is beyond politics. this is about the rights of a free man being held in iran. so i'm asking my colleagues the american people to get engaged, to call upon iran to do what is right and release the americans that they hold. and it's really important that this congress speak with one voice and carry the voices of the people that we represent, asking telling iran that if they think they can join the global community and continue to hold innocent americans as political prisoners they are wrong. so please, for those who want to use the #freeamir now to send a message to thank those members, as i will, thank those members of congress who have joined this resolution. i'll be sending out on twitter a thank you to each member who has done so using #freeamirnow.

i hope other members of congress and those across the country will join us. now, later today we will consider legislation that will define how congress will review and offer its input on the iran potential -- potential iran nuclear deal. it is really important that we negotiate with those who make this world more dangerous first before attempting other methods, and it's important we give this negotiation a chance but it's also very clear that it will be very difficult for this congress and the american people to consider any understanding, any agreement with iran without considering their other behavior. whether it's this nuclear agreement or other engagement to this country, if they continue to hold american prisoners, it's impossible for us to ignore that fact. but it is very clear that we

should never trade the freedom of innocent americans for concessions at the negotiating table with iran over their nuclear capabilities. again, we should not make their freedom a part of this deal. they, meaning the american families who are worrying about their loved ones, don't want this and i know that amir hekmati doesn't want to be part of the consideration doesn't want to be traded for concessions at the nurke negotiating table. the -- nuclear negotiating table. the onus is on iran to do what is critical and we need to speak with a single voice and make it clear, as the senate did in their resolution calling upon iran to release these americans. it's important that the people's body speak for the people of the united states and tell iran loud and clear that you cannot hold americans as political prisoners and be

accepted into the international community. thank you mr. speaker. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen for five minutes. rafi: thank you very much mr. speaker -- ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as the latest round of the p-5 plus one iranian nuclear talks continue this week in vienna, it's important for us to highlight just how weak and dangerous this deal is. from the moment that president obama took office, he has sought a legacy of having achieved a nuclear agreement with iran regardless of the cost to our national security. in his first inaugural address, he promised to unclinch his fist to dictators and followed that up in cairo telling the regime that he was willing to move forward, quote, without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect end quote. mutual respect mr. speaker? this regime has targeted and killed americans since the iranian revolution in 1979.

this regime was responsible for killing and wounding thousands of our u.s. troops in iraq. this murderous regime is destabilizing the region and mocking the u.s. by blowing up a mock u.s. aircraft carrier and chanting continually death to america. now the president is giving iran not only access to billions of dollars but also international legitimacy. countries and businesses no longer fear doing business with iran even though the sanctions are still in place. they no longer fear looking like international pariahs, helping one of the world's worst human rights abusers and the world's largest supporter of global terror, because president obama has telegraphed to the world that he trusts the iranian regime giving it the legitimacy they would not have gotten without this nuclear

deal. what do we see now? they'll have sale of surface to ground missiles to iran. before the ink could dry on the agreement. and putin said russia will trade things like grain and equipment in exchange for iranian oil. iran has also announced that with china what china will help them build five additional nuclear power plants. according to reports, china and russia have stated they will not support snapback sanctions. now, snapback sanctions are the cornerstone of the deal that administration praised as a victory. and u.s. oil executives have reportedly begun talks with iranian officials in preparation for the opening of iran's economy. in iran, no less. now we hear reports that czechs stopped the potentially illegal nuclear technology purchase by

the iranians earlier this year. so i ask the administration, did the administration know and did the p-5 plus one know about this violation, did they choose to ignore it in order to forge this framework agreement anyway? all of this in exchange for a deal that allows iran to continue to enrich ukrainian and to keep every -- uranium and to keep everything intact. the iranians are not giving nothing but cosmetic and easily reversible changes. since taking office, president obama has capitulated to iranian demands. we won't even be able to adequately verify this nuclear agreement. despite what the president promises because he knows that access to iranian sites rests with the iranian regime.

access to military sites where they would more than likely hide some of their nuclear infrastructure isn't in the deal either. it is full harty and dangerous to believe -- full hardy and dangerous to believe that they would give unon instructive anytime access anywhere to all of their sites. we're not forcing the regime to come clean on the military dimensions of its nuclear program nor are we addressing its ballistic missile program, its support for terror and its expansionist agenda throughout the middle east. all we're doing is legitimizing one of the world's worst and most dangerous regimes at the expense of regional and u.s. national security. iran will use this influx of money to continue spreading terror and fermenting instability and sectarian con flict across the globe. we've seen it in yemen. we've seen it elsewhere.

mr. speaker, the middle east is on the wrink of collapsing yet the president is on his quest. he's putting our national security in jeopardy and that of our ally the democratic jewish state of israel. thank you mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, for five minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, recently i visited the newburgh dundee bypass a highway construction project in my district that will divert traffic around two small communities that are thriving but choked with congestion. once completed, local residents and visitors will no longer be stuck in traffic, especially on the weekends. the many wineries and farms and other small businesses in the

county won't have to wait hours to get their customers in and their products out of the region. new businesses will see opportunity in relocating to the area rather than obstacles to commirs. for this growing county -- commerce. for this growing county, a transportation network is critical to its success. this isn't just true for my district, it's true across the country. our roads, trains, buses bridges and ports are at the center of our economy. they are the way people get to work and businesses get their goods to market. but unfortunately funding for our transportation system continues to shrink. spending on our infrastructure is now at its smallest share of g.d.p. in the last 22 years. in my state in a 2014 report, the oregon department of transportation estimates that the current 20-year forecast budget for the state highway system is insufficient to preserve and maintain pavement and bridges in their current condition. the report finds that not only

will our roads deteriorate but an increasing number of bridges will close to heavy trucks forcing lengthy detores that will cost business -- detours that will cost businesses time and money. poor quality roads lead to greater maintenance costs, congested arteries and traffic that delays the delivery of products and of course failure to update our trains and bridges threatens the public's safety. i implore this body, let us take action before another tragic accident. the short-term extension of the highway trust fund have left contractors and workers with uncertainty as they delay or even scrap construction plans. this costs jobs and defers unnecessary maintenance and new construction while increasing expenses. recently the president of the afl-cio transportation trade department said this years of congressional inaction on a

long-term surface transportation bill has harmed our economy. congress needs to get to work on a robust long-term bill that expands investments in job creation and is paid for with the sustainible revenue stream. i couldn't agree more. the newburgh dundee bypass was decades in the making. it's a partnership with local, state tribal and quite simply it wouldn't be under construction without previously approved funding. the oregon department of transportation couldn't make a commitment without a commitment from the federal government as well. when i visited the construction site last week it was clear that this project is putting people to work. construction workers, people down the supply chain and many others. now, with just a few days until the current transportation bill expires, i call on my colleagues to take up a robust multimodal, long-term transportation bill. funding transportation provides our communities with an economic boost now and

reinforces our infrastructure in a way that will sustain and strengthen our economy years from now. now, there have been many discussions in this chamber about global competitiveness and the u.s. role in the world. world-class infrastructure is critical to securing and maintaining this role. we need to act. we need to act now. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, for five minutes. . mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker i rise today to express my support for the iran nuclear agreement review act. while i wish it were stronger, it does force the administration to bring it before this body to review any deal. last week i traveled to israel on a week-long mission to strengthen the u.s.-israel relationship and conveyed the message that we stand with our israeli partners on the security challenge that are in front of

us. the threat posed by iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon was at the forefront of literally everyone's mind. the israeli leaders i met with, the individuals across the political spectrum all reiterated what i have said all along. concerns about the direction of the p-5 plus one nuclear talks with iran is not, i repeat is not a partisan issue. in fact there was multipartisan support and appreciation in israel for prime minister netanyahu's outspoken opposition to a bad deal. mr. speaker, this is not just an american and israeli issue. a nuclear iran threatens the middle east and i would argue the entire world. our allies in the gulf cooperation council are also skeptical of a deal taking shape. the leaders of saudi arabia, bahrain, owe man and the united arab emirates have made their displeasure known by choosing to skip the president's camp david

summit this week. if we agree to a deal that legitimatizes iran as a nuclear threshold state, they will not sit by. the last thing anyone in the p-5 plus one wants is a nuclear arms race further destabilizing the middle east and i believe increasing the chance of a nuclear war. i implore my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation today to ensure the american people have a say in final agreement with iran. the legislation today guarantees that congress will have an up or down vote on the future of any deal. it is that vote, the one which will occur after a deal is reached that will be the pivotal moment in our efforts to stop iran's nuclear program. that will be the poet that decides whether iran has an internationally accepted path to a bomb or whether we will hold the administration accountable on its assertion that no deal is better than a bad deal. looking ahead to that vote we

must withstand the pressure and reject any deal that leaves intact iran's nuclear infrastructure. cement's iran's position as a nuclear threshold state. unwinds the sang's architecture giving iran an infusion of literally billions of dollars it will use to finance terror against israel and around the globe. and legitimatizes a sure to fail inspection regime that falls short of any time, anywhere inspections. mr. speaker, we must not be fooled into false choices and iran must not be left with any path to a nuclear weapon. finally mr. speaker, i want to highlight something very concerning related to syria, which has, i believe, significant implications for any iran agreement. recent reports indicate that a clear violation of a dl that this administration struck with bashir assad to remove chemical weapons from syria.

unfortunately, these serious violations are not receiving the attention and scrutiny they deserve. according to reports an international monitoring body found traces of chemical weapons in syria and reported this breach to the administration earlier this year. former u.s. ambassador to syria is quoted as saying the syrian revelation shouldn't be sur a surprise give the track record. it's a violation of the deal we struck with the russians, and it's a violation of the deal that the syrian regime struck with the u.n. end quote. mr. speaker, we cannot let history repeat itself with a bad deal with iran. this deal, if done incorrectly, has far-reaching implications, not just for the united states, israel, and our allies, but for the world and future generations. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this deal -- vote in favor of the legislation coming before this body today so that we can give the american people

an opportunity to review what the deais and have an opportunity to vote yes or no based upon what is in this agreement. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the air recognizes the gentleman from washingn, mr. heck, for five minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we hear a lot about rap sheets these days. we hear of a lot of young people being defined by simple brushes with the law. but for this man, billy frank jr., his story was so much more than the crimes for which he was arrested, not convicted, i might add, his rap sheet and martin luther king's rap sheet and rosa park's rap sheet and congressman john lewis' rap sheet are just a piece of a larger narrative about the struggle for social

justice. billy frank jr. was the pacific northwest foremost advocate for the restoration of native american fishing treaty rights, a dream he lived and saw realized. he cherished clean water and salmon, and he was a key voice in the recovery of the puget sound. billy was also a proud patriot. he served in the united states marine corps where, ironically, he was a member of the military police. billy passed away a year ago may 5, but he really isn't gone. his story is here. in the halls of congress for which he was so often seen and which he he roamed on behalf of his beloved causes, including protecting the puget sound and our fisheries and the cause of clean water. his story is in the wildlife

refuge which we now protect to give our wildlife a clean and sustainable place to live, which was made possible by a great former member of the united states house of representatives norm dix -- dicks. he was born and raised and grew up in frank's landing which was a hop skip, and jump from the wildlife refuge and where his family lived, for perhaps thousands of years. he he fished in the necessary qualy river which snakes through the wildlife refuge and that's the location of where he was arrested, more than a dozen times. well, ok. it was actually 59 times. the bill i introduce this week h.r. 2270, will rename that refuge after billy frank jr. and it will also make the place of the signing of the treaty of the medicine creek a national historic site. it will make sure that the story of that site is told, especially by the desendants of those that

lived that history. those tribes will be involved in the development and understanding behind that site and what it means to this many now and before. billy was often asked, how do you do this? how do you effectively advocate on behalf of clean water and salmon as he did over so many decades? and billy always had the same answer. he would say, tell your story. tell your story. so when people go to the billy frank jr. wildlife refuge, they'll be able to he see why why he held fish-ins why he risked arrest so many times, they'll see why he he he ultimately worked with others to help protect his home and the home of the fish. they'll see why he he did all these things. like young people today he fought for what he believed in. and later in his life, he he worked with lawmakers to build consensus. in fact, he was a master consensus builder.

how do i he know this? well, he was nominated for the nobel peace prize. he actually won the extremely prestigious albert schweitzer humanitarian award. he has had not one but two books written about him. so my hope is that when people drive by the sign that directs them to the refuge, maybe they'll feel a little bit of that billy frank jr. magic, maybe they'll wonder who he he was and what he did and find out about his story. for those of us who knew him, it will be a great reminder of a hero. in fact, i would count billy frank jr. a man i knew many decades and loved is more than a hero he was truly a great man. he was the pacific northwest equivalent of nelson mandela or martin luther king jr. or desmond tutu that's how great a man he was. here's what billy said. i don't believe in magic.

i believe in the sun and the stars, the water, the tides, floods, the owls, the hawks flying, the river running, the wind talking. they are measurements. they tell us how healthy things are. because we and they are the same. that's what i believe in. those who listen, those who learned to listen to the world that sustains them can hear the message brought forth by the salmon. billy frank jr. and his stories have to be told, and that's why i invite my colleagues today to join in co-sponsorship of h.r. 2270. join me and all the members of the washington statehouse delegation and mr. cole and ms. mccollum, the co-chairs of the native american caucus, in co-sponsoring the billy frank jr. tell your story act. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. green for five minutes.

mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the month of pay is asian pacific american heritage month. and i'm proud to say that we have many visitors, in fact hundreds of visitors, who are here at the capitol, many celebrating this month with us. among those who are visiting are some of my friends and some of my colleagues and some persons who are from other places than my congressional district, but they are still friends of mine. among them are -- or is dawn lynn, she worked in our congressional office for some time. she's a visitor here today. she is the mother of the confucius resolution that i brought before congress and passed. another is the father of the international district in houston, texas. mr. wei li, he's a dear friend and i'm honored he's here today.

another is kenneth lee, known as the mayor of chinatown in houston, texas. affectionately so. we also have chris kang, casey kang, donny dickey, ray hong, and lily li, all friends and visiting today. i'm honored today, mr. speaker to say a few words about american heritage month because the truth is america the beautiful is a more beautiful america because of asian americans and pacific islanders. one such beautiful american was wong kim ark. wong kim arc -- ark, was in the united states and born here and in 1894 he decided that he would travel to china. upon returning from china in 1895 he was denied entrance into the united states. wong kim ark.

he was denied interest into the once because of the chinese exclusion act. this act was one that was passed to prevent chinese americans from having ingress and egress into this country. if you are not a citizen of course. the 14th amendment to the constitution became the subject of his re-entry into the country because when they declared him ineligible to return to the country it was because they were saying he was not a citizen, notwithstanding the fact that he was born in california. but if you read closely the 14th amendment to the constitution, you'll find it reads all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. that's some key language, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and the state where they reside. well, there were some persons who thought that the term, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meant that since their parents were the subjects of the emperor of china, he could not be a citizen of the united states of america. this case went all the way to the support of the united states of america. and it was all because of the chinese exclusion act of 1882. the supreme court did a judicious thing, they ruled in his favor. he was a citizen of the united states of america. and while that might seem like such a small thing today it is really a significant piece of world history in terms of how persons born in this country become citizens because had they ruled otherwise, there are a good many people who could be born in this country but not be citizens of the united states of america. he was the test case that went before the supreme court. and while many persons conclude that the 14th amendment has its roots in those who were freed

from slavery in the united states of america to accord them citizenship, and i concur with this by the way, but i also would add this while it was giving birth to the cause of the freed slaves it was given clarity because of mr. ark who was the denied citizenship for a brief moment but finally the supreme court ruled that wong kim ark was a citizen of the united states of america. . so as i close today mr. speaker, i'd like to say this. there are many contributions that asian american, pacific islanders made to this great nation to make america the more beautiful america, and i think we should not limit our thoughts to things such as dance which is wonderful. the great food which is great. to the beautiful clothing, which is a great thing as well. i think we have to go beyond these things and remember the

transcontinental railroad that was instructed by the labor of tens -- constructed by the labor of tens of thousands of persons of chinese ancestry. i think we have to go beyond this country if we're going to take a global look at the history. and i think, mr. speaker that america the beautiful is a more beautiful america because they are here. god bless you, mr. speaker. thank you for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker yesterday was may 13 was a significant day for 15 million college students who are entering next year's academic year because it's the day that the u.s. department of treasury, based on their auction of 10-year notes, sets the interest rates for the stafford student loan program for all those students who will be borrowing for next year. the good news is based on yesterday's auction where .

and it was slated for 6.8% and tying to the interest charged by the department of treasury, moderated those costs for again, 15 million college students all across the country who used the stafford student loan program. that news of that yesterday, though, begs the larger question which is what about all those people who are carrying high interest rate student loans who already graduated over the last 10 years or so? the federal reserve board tells us over $1 trillion of student loan debt overhangs the u.s. economy today more than car

loan debt, more than credit card loan debt. and the trap many of those people find themselves in is they cannot refinance that debt because it's noncollateralized loans and that those who hold it in the public sector in the stafford student loan sector again, cannot by law refinance down and take advantage of these low interest rates that the federal government is benefiting from because of monetary trends in markets that exists today. well the good news is there is a measure before the congress, the bank on students emergency student refinancing act h.r. 1434, which would allow people both with private student loan debt and public student loan debt to refinance those loans down to 3% taking advantage, again, of the fact we have a very beneficial environment right now in terms of government borrowing. today the federal government actually makes money off those graduates who are paying 8%,

9%, 10% interest on their loans which is unconscionable given the fact that that debt is causing great damage to those individuals in terms of starting their lives. the pew research center actually issued a report last year where it talked about the fact that 40% to 50% of people in their 20's and early 30's are delaying marriage, they're delaying starting a family and they are basically being denied the access to get a starter home or a real estate mortgage because their debt-to-income ratios are thrown completely offkilter due to the facter that' carrying such high student loan debt. this bill would result in half of that trillion dollars being written down, putting millions of dollars of money into people's pockets that they can spend on things that in terms of getting their lives started and, again it's important to note this is not a giveaway by the government. it's just -- these folks are

paying back the loans that they were able to acquire from the stafford student loan program. it allows them to moderate their interest rate to export with what's out there for -- comport with what's out there. for car loans, which, again, are higher -- excuse me -- lower than what student loan debt is today. the bill has 130 co-sponsors in the house. mr. speaker, it's time that we take up this loan refinancing act to provide critical help for those who are getting killed throughout with monthly payments and, again inhibiting them to start their lives and do the steps in life that people in their 20's and 30's have done in generations before. sadly we saw a budget resolution pass a couple weeks ago, the house republican budget resolution, that not only failed to take advantage of the fact that government is get -- that the government is

able to borrow at historic low rates but in fact compounds the problem because it is going to allow the federal government to charge from while students who are carrying stafford student loans in school are going to have interest charge while in school. traditionally, the stafford student loan program has provided a good benefit. they won't charge interest while they're in college. the republican budget actually changed that rule so interest will accumulate while students are in college adding to their debt burden at the time that they graduate. we need to address this problem, pass h.r. 1434, let's take advantage of these low interest rates, let's help millions of americans get a better start on life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

>> we'll take you live now to the briefing with democratic leader nancy pelosi. she's been speaking to reporters for just under 10 minutes. >> currency manipulation, what can do you to try to get this to the president's desk? ms. pelosi: what can i do? i think it will probably go -- we'll see what happens in the senate today. i have no idea if it will pass. people, mr. schumer seems optimistic about having the vote

on currency manipulation. all i can say is there is concern among members of the house about the currency -- about currency manipulation. there has been for a very long time. so now it is the -- the concern is now man fested in the opportunity that may present itself -- manifested in the opportunity that may present itself in the trade negotiations. it has been pretty clear -- my understanding is that they don't want this in the bill. we keep saying what, other suggestions would you have? because it is a general belief that currency manipulation has been responsible for a loss of many jobs in our country. it is effectively a government subsidy. this some countries have used and it's unfair in terms of trade. there's a high level of

interest. we'll see what happens in the senate, but i don't usually predict what's going to be happening in the senate. are they bringing it up at noon? i'll have more to say after that. >> on the house side of it obviously t.p.p. will come to the house after it passes the senate, are you willing to able to say if you think it will pass the house at this point? a number of democrats in your conference are very opposed to it. do you think you have a chance of passing and do you have any news where you stand on that legislation? ms. pelosi: let's see what comes out of the senate. they'll be taking up the currency -- customs bill and currency will be part and the africa and special preferences legislation. then they start the debate on the other two trade promotion act and the trade adjustment act. we'll see what comes through the amendment process there.

you go back and forth on specifics and can we have any changes that might be made in the t.p.p., the actual bill, the transpacific bill, what partnership. but one concern that people have about the trade promotion act is, of course we would love to see the substitute pass because it empowered congress, had more transparency more consultation with congress, and the rest. that was not made in order by the house republicans. but one -- we would prefer that. but one overriding concern that members have on the t.p.a. is that this is not a t.p.a. for the transpacific -- trade promotion act, fast track just for the pacific bill. the t.p.p. bill or the european bill. -- bill that will be coming up. this is really effectively a

six-year -- don't want to say get out of jail free, but something to that effect. carte blanche fast track of three years easily renewable for three years as a privileged resolution. the senate giving up its 60-vote requirement for renewable in three years. that means any and all bills that might come down the track. i think that's a real reason for concern and i wish that that part of it could be changed. because what we are saying is, well,er' asking for fast track let -- well, you're asking for fast track, let's see what you're asking for fast track for. for weeks and weeks and weeks we have been reviewing the t.p.p. to the extent that it is finished. some parts of it aren't, they tell us. but we have been drilling down on currency manipulation, dispute resolution, food sanitation environmental

concerns workers' rights. the list goes on and on. substantively. so people are saying ail give you fast track if i think that i might vote for t. -- depending on what -- depending on what it's for. this is fast track is for things unknown and i would hope there could be some addressing of the length of time and the open season that it gives for any trade agreement. not related to the substance of any agreement that we see on the horizon, but anything that might come along. the majority, when i was the speaker, used to always write every vote was a test of my leadership, no matter what it was. this will be a test of the speaker's leadership as to whether he can produce the votes for a bill that the republicans support. i think we have time for maybe

one or two more questions. >> have you spoken with the white house about your desire to have time frame for the t.p.a.? what have they said? ms. pelosi: we have a number of concerns that members have. again we have listed some of them. what i'm going to do today is really to see what responses we have received back on some of the concerns that have been mentioned. whether that was really part of what this -- the levin substitute put forth. they obviously are supporting the bill as it is going to the floor in the senate. that might be a response. >> saudi arabia and other nations declined to participate, what do you think that says about our current relationships?

ms. pelosi: i didn't think saudi arabia declined to participate. the head of state did. but they are sending representation, for whatever reason, the king will not be coming. they will have high level participation in the meeting. i think that this is a new idea to bring everyone here. i commend the president for his leadership in doing it, and it is -- it's innovative. some people are not attuned to that innovation. i think this president deserves a great deal of credit on foreign policy. of course one of the issues on the agenda, i believe, i haven't been told, but from what i read in the daily metropolitan journals at our disposal here is that an iran agreement would be an issue of discussion there. this president deserves a great deal of credit. the very idea that -- some of it

probably started under president bush and has continued the reaching out for an agreement with iran. but this president under his leadership to have the p-5, russia china united states, the u.k., and france plus one germany, in agreement for a long period of time over sanctions, over the terms of the negotiations, is almost miraculous. this is a very -- i won't go into the years i have been trying to get china russia, even france to stop transferring dual technologies to iran, two decades at least. in any event, i see this as a very major accomplishment. and obviously the goal is that iran will not have a nuclear weapon. and we have to exhaust every diplomatic remedy to make sure

that happens. so i think the president brings a high -- strong hand to the table. camp david, i can't keep up with everybody's locations, but at the table, camp david in terms of bringing countries together to act severly in terms of having leverage in negotiation with iran. i wish him well. it's a discussion. it's not a lecture. they will have a conversation among women exchange views, and i think that is a very good thing for them to do. >> amtrak, got $1.3 billion from the stimulus bill. is that really an excuse for

underinvestment in the corridor if you have such a huge infusion that you helped get for them? ms. pelosi: i don't know, you you have to ask others. i just don't know why. but the republicans have been very much against amtrak for a very long time. i remember when secretary thompson came to be head of h.h.s., secretary of h.h.s., former governor of wisconsin, remember when he came, he really loved amtrak. and i think that was where his heart was and was hoping he could play a leadership role there. that's kind of what he told us. but they put him at h.h.s. which he loved as well. he was sort of an exception among the republicans in terms of strong supporter of amtrak. the -- in the history of that country, if you go back and read

about henry clay when he was speaker, the issue of infrastructure was controversial in our country then. nor than you may want to hear about this morning. when thomas jefferson was president, he had an initiative for building infrastructure of our country. part of it was lewis and clark expedition to explore, the cumberland road, erie canal, all of that. it's very exciting. 100 years later to celebrate they established the national park service as a preservation of our infrastructure and all the rest. another manifestation of infrastructure. but even going back over 200 years there was dispute because the southerners didn't want to support infrastructure. it looked like most of those projects were going to be in the north. even though -- i'm not saying strictly northeast at that

point, in the north. there's been a regional debate historically in our country on the subject. but that was sort of ancient. you saw the president eisenhower at the time of tough economic times had the interstate highway system put forth. it was a defense mechanism to unify america. so this is about our economy, it's about our safety, it's about quality of life clean air. it's so important for us to do. and one manifestation of that infrastructure which does all those things is mass transit. is amtrak. people to and from work saving time quality of life, cleaning the air, and the rest, and for some reason it's just been opposed by some, not all, by

some in the republican party. in any case, we have the speaker coming in in 10 minutes. i have to give up this room. call me if you have a question. i'll see you next week. i'll be here next week. this is a big deal and i'm hoping that we can work together with the speaker as we have done recently on past issues to restore the bipartisanship in the broader question of transportation and infrastructure because we have to meet the needs of the american people. it affects every aspect of their lives. the economy of our country, the safety of our people, thank you-all very much. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

fun fun >> also a measure that would limit international financing of hezbollah. they will continue work this afternoon on amendments to the 2016 defense authorization bill. we'll have that live when the house returns at noon here on c-span. before speaker boehner comes before his briefing in a couple minutes. conversation from this morning's "washington journal." a tweet here from reuters, the amtrak train in philadelphia wreck was traveling at twice the speed limit. more about that from today's "washington journal." area, and julie, let's begin with the latest on the situation there. what are you waiting to find out today? what do you know this morning? julie: absolutely. what's on everybody's minds

today is who is still missing and who are the victims of this crash. we learned many of the names yesterday and we'll still learn some today and hearing from the families and friends who are devastated. what we're also talking about is how could this happen. the system called positive train control is what everybody's focused on. this is a system that an ntsb said yesterday if this system had been on place on these tracks this would not have happened and that is on everyone's mind. this train was going 106 miles per hour in a 50 mile an hour zone and much of the country can't make that possible. >> they were on the scene yesterday morning. what's the timeline for their investigation and the protocol for this agency? >> it's a slow process which is actually why i was so surprised

yesterday to hear them say something so definitive that this system would prevent this. he's great at telling us we're collecting data. they're moving slowly and do analysis and come out with a report. i never before heard the day after any sort of disaster this is something that would have stopped it. so this is apparently a very clear cut scene at that level and moving forward there is going to be a lot more analysis in the days and weeks to come. >> the ntsb puts out a report and who do they report to and what happens? julie: it's a federal report and made public.

there's going to be a first report that will come out fairly soon, even today there is going to be another one coming that will tell us more of what they know afternoon and down the line there will be there's going to be a first report that will come out fairly soon, a full report. >> how does information sharing work? who was jurisdiction over this scene? you've got amtrak that travelled across state lines, especially this northeast corridor and this train coming from union station in d.c. headed to new york. so who does this jurisdiction over this and the legality of it? >> that's a great question. we're looking at simply investigating this scene it's for the most part philadelphia police but there have been a lot of state and federal input coming in because this is drawing attention of people all over the country going forward. they need to look whether there

needs to be policy questions and do something different. that's a federal question. >> there is, as you said, lots in the papers today about positive control systems that would have prevented the derailment and allows the train to slow down when approaching an area where the speed limit was much lower, half of what the train was going. do we know why this part of the track did not have this train system in place? julie: no, i don't think we know about this particular section. it's installed already in much of the northeast corridor which is amtrak's busiest especially the station that this train was going, from union station to new york. congress has required amtrak have to this system in place by the end of this year everywhere and this simply -- it's an urban

area and somewhat deserted area in the city. it's a lot of rails and not very close to residential and commercial areas and did not have the system yet. >> what's the latest from amtrak about their operations and what do you expect to hear from them today in the coming days? julie: they have been focused on getting the people who were on that train where they need to go. they had a pretty personalized effort to get every single person get them to some other form of transportation whether they were heading home or they wanted to turn around and go back to d.c. or whatever their preferences were they were focused on getting them there. what i'd like to know the stat is

the status of people missing. we don't have would have been done in an instant. >> sunday night 8:00 eastern and pacific. on c-span q & a. "washington journal" continues. greta: we are back would have been done in an with congressman hakem jeffreys. he serves on the judiciary committee and a frequent rider of the amtrak to commute back and forth to your district. what is your initial reaction? hakem: it's ae american taxpayer.

greta: is amtrak doing well managing what they have? what they have received from taxpayers? hakem: i think amtrak has done the best they can. expertly with respect to the northeast corridor which is the section i take and the section that runs from boston to washington, d.c. it's extremely profitable. there are financial challenges with respect to other areas of the country that need to be evaluated but i'm not one that thinks we should pull the plug or private ties it. it's not clear that any

passenger rail system in the world is profitable. the reason it requires government support it's designed to create a public benefit which is the capacity to travel from city to city and different parts of the country via rail. greta: it's operated at a loss every year since 1971. wh

the fookt that has been cut off for a significant amount of americans, in rural america as well as inner city america is a problem. what america should stand for is opportunity and capacity to maximize your work ethic age translate that into some success for you and your family. there are many people throughout this country, inner city communities, rural america, who don't think they have an adequate pathway toward pursuing the american dream. that should trouble all of us. host: the "washington times" in the headlines this morning,

absence of a stable upper middle class in baltimore. that is seen as part of the problem. do you agree? if so, why? what is the absence of stable middle class do to these neighborhoods? guest: the problem of the declining middle class is one that america's got to confront. we've got a situation in this country where there's been some structural impediment to the middle class remaining as viable as it once was. that was the success story of america in the aftermath of world war ii when those veterans heroes, came back to this country and built the great american middle class. sfrl things have happened. since the 1970 ea, the 3r0divity of the american worker has increased, i believe in excess of 275%. wages have grown during that same period at less than 10%. though the american worker has become more productive they are falling further and further behind. and in the inner city communities like baltimore where you don't have a stable middle class, that provides the same

level of investment and engagement in the neighborhood that you might otherwise have, then you are going to have issues and problems and challenges in those communities. host: we are talking with hakim jefferies, democrat of new york, vice chair of the congressional black caucus about many of the key debates on capitol hill. we'll get to your calls now. christine in kingston, illinois, a republican, up first. go ahead. caller: hi, for anyone who has played a game of monopoly, everybody in the world knows it's two or three people have all the money and they don't spread the wealth around and it -- you have to invest in property. not only our infrastructure. i'm sick of hearing about schools in afghanistan when i have potholes and my kids goo to schools with older equipment. the speaker: good morning, everyone. i want to extend condolences to those who lost loved ones in tuesday's amtrak derailment.

our thoughts and prayers are with these families. the injured and all those who have been affected by this horrible accident. our committees are following the investigation closely, and we'll await the final results. let me also take a moment to recognize national police week. a job of a police officer is not easy. it's also very dangerous. as a report from the f.b.i. this week confirmed. there are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers in our country. we are surrounded by some of the finest of these officers right here at the capitol. so on behalf of the whole house i want to thank all of our police officers and our families for their service and their daily sacrifices. here in the house we continue to make the american people's priorities our priorities. starting with jobs and the economy. we passed real entitlement reform, balanced budget plan

and good bills to make a difference for working families. i'm pleased to here -- hear the senate has found a path forward to deal with trade promotion authority. more trade, means more jobs for the american people. when the senate completes its work on this important legislation, the house will follow suit. republicans are going to do our part. ultimately however, success is going to require the democrats putting aside politics and doing what's best for our country. our national security today, the president, is going to huddle with middle east leaders. and we are reminded of the growing threats posed by iran and by isis terrorists. in the house we are addressing these challenges head-on. this week the house passed reforms to improve our foreign intelligence capabilities that helps keep americans safe.

today we'll act to ensure that congress and the people will have an opportunity to review any potential agreement with iran. tomorrow we'll take up a strong defense bill to ensure that our troops have the tools and the support they need to carry out their missions. this shouldn't be a tough vote, but incredibly after helping to pass this bill through committee by a vote of 60-2, democrat leaders have pulled their support. so let me be clear, this vote is about whether you support our men and women in uniform. the bill authorizes all the funding the president requested for our national defense. it improves pay and benefits for our troops and their families. it calls for greater protection of our troops from sexual assault. and includes a number of other commonsense measures that members of both parties have supported for years. so, democrats are now saying

they support our troops before they oppose them. you ought to ask them, but i think it's drown right shameful they are even contemplating turning their backs on american troops. i would urge all democrats, especially those on the armed services committee, who voted for this bill in committee, to give our troops the support they deserve as they put their lives on the line to keep america safe. >> trade promotion authority with the customs bill, currency manipulation provisions, trade adjustment can that package pass the house? the speaker: we'll see how the senate -- what the senate sends us and then we'll make decisions about how we'll consider it in the house. but we will consider all those issues in the house. >> there are certainly republicans who support some kind of measure combating

currency manipulation. would you put something like that on the floor for a vote? the speaker: we have had this discussion about currency between countries and continents for the 25 years i have been here. and i think -- to think congress can legislate what currency val wations are -- valuations are between countries is laughable. i think the department of treasury, under the four presidents i served with, have done a very good job of working with our allies around the world when some of these currencies get in some people's minds out of line. i think it's a much better approach than trying to legislate what should or shouldn't happen with regular currency valuations. >> do you think it's possible for the house to do something on trade before the recess?

the speaker: i don't know what the timing on the senate action is or how long it will take the senate, it's doubtful this will happen before the end of next week. >> what kind of offsets are you giving to the democrats for highway funding? the speaker: there's a conversation going on between democrats and republicans, the house and senate over how to deal with the highway funding authorizations and for what period of time. no decision has been made. >> do you prefer a measure of the highway funding at the end of the year, would you be ok with something that just -- the speaker: i prefer we have a permanent five year or longer highway funding program in place. reporter: that's not going to happen? the speaker: that's probably not going to happen next week. reporter: would you be ok with sending spending authority? the speaker: my preference is whatever we can get agreement on amongst all parties involved. which as you are well aware is always difficult. reporter: mr. speaker, the language in the time constraints

of the senate has to deal with the whole issue that congress will have to pass a short-term extension of -- the speaker: the nature of the administration has the tools to help keep americans safe. it's time for the senate to act. yes, sir. reporter: passage -- the speaker: there's a what? reporter: passage of the act by the house increased trust -- the speaker: listen, we have a strong relationship with our allies when it comes to intelligence matters. while there may be political squabbles at the top, if you look down below our relationships on the intelligence side around the world are as strong as everment -- ever. reporter: democrats that amtrak was not well funded enough and that republicans have --

the speaker: are you really going to ask? that's a stupid question. it's all about funding. obviously it's not about funding. the train was going twice the speed limit. adequate funds were there. no money's been cut from rail safety. and the house passed a bill earlier this spring to re-authorize amtrak and authorize a lot of these programs. it's hard for me to imagine that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we also covered the democratic leader's briefing a short while ago you can see at c-span.org. u.s. house meeting for legislative work at noon eastern. they'll consider the senate passed bill.

if the house approves the measure, it will go to the president who says he'll sign it. members will also turn to a bill aimed at limiting international financing of hezbollah. later this afternoon continued work on defense department programs and policy for 2016. more work on the authorization bill with 135 amendments lined up for consideration. debate on that bill is expected to go into friday. live coverage of the house when they return here on c-span. until they return more of today's "washington journal." journal" continues. host: and we are back with peter roskam, republican from illinois. congressman, we do want to start before we get to the irs and health care because it looks i do has been a deal struck in the senate -- looks like there has been a deal struck in the senate. what is your view on trade promotion authority? guest: well, two things.

the trade promotion authority is incredibly important. it is important because it creates a lot of opportunities for the american economy to expand. 95% of the world's consumers are outside of the u.s., so we need permission -- position our economy to compete worldwide. and somebody is going to lead. if the u.s. doesn't lead and we are not actively participating in these two new trade deals somebody is going to fill that gap. in the pacific rim, it will likely be china. from a strategic point of view i think it makes a lot more sense for us to be leading. and i think many of our trading partners have that similar view. we have work to do to get the votes. host: yes, this because of the house saying he needs about 50 democrats to join the republican ranks. why aren't all republicans on board? guest: there is the sort of odd confluence now that you see

sometimes, kind of an arc for the two sides who don't agree on anything else find themselves similarly situated. you have some republicans that say, look, i just don't trust barack obama. and based on his past history the expectations are fairly low at the are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt. so they are not persuaded by the idea that your ackley restraining president obama -- actually -- you are actually restraining president obama. and there are democrats who have demonstrated a very high level of confidence in president obama in every other aspect of his administration. they are giving him complete confidence on the iran deal, for example, but they don't trust him on trade. so there is this strange confluence. i am hopeful that when all is said and done, we are able to put this authority on the president's desk.

and then those deals will come back and will be debated in congress. host: the senate democrat hating the president he defeated earlier in the week, but it looks like it could be enough votes that they will forward now with trade. the "washington times," some republicans suggest that mr. obama should be leftist do in the toxic juices cooked by his own hand, but that would be shortsighted. guest: i agree with that. and i will go one step further. they should vote yes for it. because it is thoughtful. i think about this in the context of putting together any sort of negotiation. there are people who are not going to put their best deal on the table until they know that our key negotiator has signed off on it. i didn't want to come back and get nickeled and dined in

congress. congress still has the ability to hold the last word. host: let's get to oversight than of the irs and health care. you are the chair of the oversight subcommittee for ways and means. this is a -- "the hill," irs probes dragged on. why and how much money has been spent? guest: it is highly dissatisfying because the department of justice has not acted on the referrals that congress made regarding the centerpiece, the centerpiece for the irs targeting scandal. nor had they move forward on the contempt citation that congress moved forward. and the irs has been loath to forward documents. so just recently, we have received an additional 6500 e-mails from the internal revenue service that for a long time said we couldn't get them, we don't know where they are. these crashing hard drives.

and it becomes ridiculous to the point of absurdity. and viewers are completely -- this that should of limitation does not run on her until about nine months into the next administration. so a newly constituted department of justice, i would argue, is likely to have a different disposition. in the meantime, what capitol hill is doing is to direct ourselves to what i have characterized as an attitude of impunity at the internal revenue service. that is a disposition that has developed over the years that has basically said we can do what we want, when we want, and to whom we want. that has been the attitude of the internal revenue service. i am oversimplifying, but i don't think i'm over characterizing. host: so you are saying that this investigation into the irs -- the charge that they were going after tea party affiliated

groups -- that could continue into the next administration. tell of you is how much this has cost taxpayers so far. guest: well, i cannot give you dollars and ents in terms -- cents in terms of the appropriate it dollars. there has not been a group created in terms of that sense. i would hope they have spent -- because i would argue they have violated constitutional rights by targeting people. and i hope they have spared no expense at pursuing justice. their problem is they are not willing to disclose anything. host: so congressional democrats say that two years without investigations is costing millions of taxpayers dollars and has found with a have long success of -- long suspected -- guest: i think that is a false claim. let me give you a quick story.

i will give you a 62nd story. my old law partner in 1996 was republican nominee for the united states senate and he loads his campaign a sum of money. the commission said, you did it the wrong way, and they put him under investigation about 60 days before the investigation. big headlines that he was being investigated. he lost the election. the federal government sued him. and he won the lawsuit. the federal election commission thank him back and said, we have a settlement demand of about $300,000. he said, i won the lawsuit. they said, we are going to appeal. he said, let me talk to the person who has authority on this case. the person with authority on this case got on the phone with my partner and said, we will drop this case if you pledge never to run for office again. he said, put that in writing. she said, we don't put that in

writing and we never lose. now, i have told the story and i have given this account in public hearings in the ways and means committee. it has been editorialized two or three times. and there has been silence from lois lerner. why? because she did it. now, that kind of disposition and that attitude -- and you take that and you move it from the federal election commission to the internal revenue service -- that is not bureaucratic bumbling. that is insidious targeting and that has to stop. host: ok. the irs commissioner has said this is not the irs of 2011 2012, 2013. the members of congress should give it a chance. he has performed it. guest: look, this is part of this great debate. we have had a number of hearings. one of the hearings we recently had was on an iris practice

known as structuring. structuring is a crime under federal law, and it has to do with triggering a reporting requirement that is a business person -- if a business person deposit $10,000 in cash, it triggers a report that the bank has to make to the federal government. underlying that is a decent policy, and that is to go after meth labs and mafia front groups but the problem is that the iris has been pursuing these cases very very -- irs has been pursuing these cases very, very -- there is a case of a couple in maryland who the irs basically chased to the end of the earth. they hadn't done anything wrong. and the irs continue to be so aggressive. then when we have a congressional hearing, the irs says ok, we are going to revamp our policies.

the irs issued an apology based on my prompting. but my point is, we have a lot of work to do. this notion of, hey, new and improved irs. we have a long way to go. host: we will talk about health care and it, but first, charles. a republican. hi, charles. caller: hi. listen, i am right with you on the iris issue, but the safe -- the irds issue, but to say it is revamped, that is a joke. having said that, on the tba -- i am a republican and wow i couldn't disagree with you more. every single person i have heard on this program talk in favor about the tpa talks about how the largest middle class in the world is now in asia. but they don't say that they are middle-class in terms of asian

currency and asian standards. to think that any of these other deals that you guys have made is going to sit there and level the playing field is ridiculous. the bottom line is you guys always come out to try and talk these trade deals up by saying that look, the more we do, the more it will raise their economy and they will start paying more money for this. so what you want us to do is raise the rest of the world to a middle-class and give these countries 20 years to do it, which means we are on a slow roll for 20 years going down to meet them at that median point. host: charles, will have a congressman jump in at this point. guest: charles, the arguments that i make a is that 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the net is dates, -- live outside the united states, so what you want to do is lower barriers of entry so that u.s. goods can flow into those areas.

i represent a lot of manufactures in chicago who sell into manufacturing facilities of larger operations that are selling than overseas. so this is not about some slow roll for 20 years or track to figure out some level of equilibrium. the way we compete best is when barriers of entry for us in the marketplaces are low. host: we will go to indianapolis. robert. an independent caller. caller: how are you doing? host: morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just act the comment -- host: we are listening, robert. caller: -- there is so much emphasis on giving the president a defeat that there is not enough emphasis on the american people getting a victory. we keep dealing the president

the feeds, -- defeats, that is good for the republican party. guest: roberts, let me try to respond. i understand what you are saying. there is an irony in how the president has approached this debate though. i think part of the possibility -- responsibility for what we are is at the president cost desk. -- president's desk. the 2012 presidential campaign, he basically told the public you are stuck in your station in life. you are stuck. the only way you can get unstuck is of the federal government comes in with a program and helps you out. and there was a subtext there, robert, that said that people are successful because they have taken from someone else. that is messed up and it is not the way the economy works. now, ironically, president obama has to shift and he has to

acknowledge, no, that is not the way the world is. it is not a zero-sum game. and it is not. and we need to move forward as it relates to growth and prosperity. and he is communicating a very different message. his problem is robert, that he persuaded a bunch of people to go the other way. i agree with you. it makes no sense for people to say, i just wanted to defeat somebody just for the sake of defeating. robert, i think what is good for you and for me and indianapolis, since we are both midwesterners is clearly trade promotion authority and these trade agreements that are going to open up opportunities for manufacturers like, you know, in indianapolis, and all the agriculture interest in indiana. host: on twitter, do you think that cutting funding for irs so they can't even answer questions from the public as part of the problem? guest: congress cut their budget

by $1.2 billion. in other words, they were appropriated $10.9 billion. think about it. if your budget was cut and you are around the house will table and things are getting tight what do you say? we are going to do more with less. that is not with the irs said. the iris commissioner issued an e-mail to the whole service and he said -- ris commissioner issued an e-mail to the whole service and he said, we are going to do less with less. you can look at the appropriation. they took money that have historically gone that route and they backfilled their own operations. what do they do? they get $60 million in bonuses to their employees. that was new. the previous commissioner said, i am not going to issue these bonuses. the new commissioner said he was going to issue bonuses. there are two other areas we demonstrated in the hearing that

the irs could do better from a fiscal point of view. the first is, the are spending 500,000 hours on union activity that is subsidized by the taxpayer. only 10% of which is required under the law. 90% of that 500,000 hours they don't have to do, yet they chose to take money from customer service into the union activities. we also demonstrated they could pick up $100 million a year directly for the irs if they used to a private debt collection program, similar to what is going on it now their -- on in other areas of the federal government. i think that they have miss allocated the money that they have been appropriated. host: moving onto oversight of the health care law. this one comes from your colleague, congressman tim murphy, who is watching you right now. talking about his bill, which i signed onto, that provides

oversight for obamacare. guest: so, thank you congressman murphy. what congressman murphy from pennsylvania -- and he is the chairman of the oversight subcommittee at energy and commerce -- what he is referring to is a bill that i am initiating with a number of colleagues calling for a special inspector general to oversee the affordable care act. >> available at c-span.org. a long day ahead in the u.s. house. theelt take up the defense authorization bill later starting this afternoon with bail passed in the senate that would give congressional overview to any iran deal nuclear deal. live coverage of the house here on c-span. pray, loving and gracious god we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day. bless